Geezer wrote:Problem definitely not solved; it's a helluva lot more violent now than 40 years ago.

While I don't disagree with the folly of banning guns, it is not more violent now than 40 years ago, never mind a helluva lot. In fact, nationally it's quite a lot less. The violent crime rate per 1,000 population is 15 today, versus nearly 48 in 1973. And in the oft-cited metropolis of Chicago, there were nearly 1,000 murders in 1974; last year, the number was right around 500.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htmThe numbers on this chart don't reflect that. I think that on a per thousand basis it was 4.2 in 1973 versus 3.9 in 201(Last year shown) unless I'm misinterpeting something. That;s a slight improvement comparing those 2 years but not a 2/3 drop.You're right that in the last 10 years violent crime has returned to 1970's type numbers. I guess I'm stuck in the 60's and 90's The current better numbers are still significantly worse than the 60's the 90's seemed to the high water mark. I am surprised that there's an improvement since 2000. I guess George Bush deserves credit for that. (That's meant in jest people).

It's more likely to be involved in 1.) an accidental shooting/death, the commission of a crime or a suicide than 2.) self defense.

Arm up, if you must, but be advised that self-defense is the less likely outcome of it being used in an "incident."It might be someone you love that gets hurt (or dies), from your own weapon....

Okay. They are misused. There are irresponsible people and criminals who use guns. But like many laws the attempts seem more directed at law-abiding,responsible people rather than those creating the problems.

jprolley wrote:freedom-loving republicans aren't against restricting as many voting rights as they can, but when it comes to guns.......let every nutcase in the world have one. dead kids are just collateral damage.

Right. People opposing your gun views don't care about kids. S.O.S. Barry called Senators who voted against the bill as liars. This has been the liberal dogma since the great uniter took office.

jprolley wrote:freedom-loving republicans aren't against restricting as many voting rights as they can, but when it comes to guns.......let every nutcase in the world have one. dead kids are just collateral damage.

Right. People opposing your gun views don't care about kids. S.O.S. Barry called Senators who voted against the bill as liars. This has been the liberal dogma since the great uniter took office.

so you agree that it's a bit hypocritical to claim to be all about freedom when they've spent how much time and energy on voting laws?

jprolley wrote:freedom-loving republicans aren't against restricting as many voting rights as they can, but when it comes to guns.......let every nutcase in the world have one. dead kids are just collateral damage.

Right. People opposing your gun views don't care about kids. S.O.S. Barry called Senators who voted against the bill as liars. This has been the liberal dogma since the great uniter took office.

so you agree that it's a bit hypocritical to claim to be all about freedom when they've spent how much time and energy on voting laws?

jprolley wrote:freedom-loving republicans aren't against restricting as many voting rights as they can, but when it comes to guns.......let every nutcase in the world have one. dead kids are just collateral damage.

Right. People opposing your gun views don't care about kids. S.O.S. Barry called Senators who voted against the bill as liars. This has been the liberal dogma since the great uniter took office.

so you agree that it's a bit hypocritical to claim to be all about freedom when they've spent how much time and energy on voting laws?

well, i am for more reasonable gun control, but it seems to me like reasonable has fallen short again in washington. when a tepid background check (with overwhelming polling support from the public) compromise between a conservative dem from WV (who shot a bullet thru obama's healthcare law in an ad) and a tea party senator from PA can't obtain final passage in the democrat controlled senate, anything gun related is now dead and buried for the forseeable future. 2nd amendment advocates rejoice, you can load up with all the arms you want till your heart is content. its over. you've won. nobody is going to make things even mildy more inconvinent for you.just don't cry to me now about Obama seizeing executive power and fundamentally altering this country to the point where you dont even recognize it anymore. if there was ever a prime example of the limits to what a president can accomplish, this was it. i cherish civil liberties of all sorts, and i appreciate the checks and balances built into our system to prevent violations of those liberties. i am glad i live in such a free country, just wish we didnt have to be free to witness so many mass tradgedies where innocents are shot up in cold blood and there was some middle ground we could find on these issues.

Last edited by Pucks_and_Pols on Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jprolley wrote:why can't i go to a store and buy some C-4? the only way to stop bad guys with bombs are good guys with bombs

bombs don't kill people. the people detonating them do.

I have to admit, I am a little confused by people on the left (and right for that matter), they have such little faith in man (every person is evil and we need to eliminate temptations), but put a lot of faith and trust in men in power.

jprolley wrote:freedom-loving republicans aren't against restricting as many voting rights as they can, but when it comes to guns.......let every nutcase in the world have one. dead kids are just collateral damage.

Far more children have been murdered by the ramped up drone attacks endorsed, approved, and expanded by your beloved CIC and started by his predecessor, don't worry about that.

I can't believe you actually used the "law-abiding citizens should have nothing to worry about" line. That's the definition of "sheeple"

When push comes to shove I come down on the side of the second amendment defenders; but I can't cheer on victories like today with much enthusiasm. Here's why: even the most libertarian minded folks seem to cede, even only as a philosophical exercise, that only the government has the ability to regulate firearms. While this may be true, it's hardly an ideal; and this socially accepted abdication of corporate responsibility creates a very unhealthy and distorted market, IMO. Tragedies like Newtown should ideally put pressure on the gun market to improve controls; instead they seem to shrug their shoulders and reap profits from fear of gun restrictions or protest of existing gun restrictions.

Geezer wrote:Problem definitely not solved; it's a helluva lot more violent now than 40 years ago.

While I don't disagree with the folly of banning guns, it is not more violent now than 40 years ago, never mind a helluva lot. In fact, nationally it's quite a lot less. The violent crime rate per 1,000 population is 15 today, versus nearly 48 in 1973. And in the oft-cited metropolis of Chicago, there were nearly 1,000 murders in 1974; last year, the number was right around 500.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htmThe numbers on this chart don't reflect that. I think that on a per thousand basis it was 4.2 in 1973 versus 3.9 in 201(Last year shown) unless I'm misinterpeting something. That;s a slight improvement comparing those 2 years but not a 2/3 drop.You're right that in the last 10 years violent crime has returned to 1970's type numbers. I guess I'm stuck in the 60's and 90's The current better numbers are still significantly worse than the 60's the 90's seemed to the high water mark. I am surprised that there's an improvement since 2000. I guess George Bush deserves credit for that. (That's meant in jest people).

I don't know where disastercenter.com got their numbers (they don't attribute a source), but I got my info from a gallup.com survey called Most Americans Believe Crime in U.S. Is Worsening. Their data came from the U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics, which falls under the U.S. Department of Justice.

Here is the specific graphic referenced:

Also, there's no way of knowing if the definitions of 'violent crime' are consistent between the two sources.

MRandall25 wrote:I don't see how asking people to show ID when voting is in any way comparable to putting even more restrictions on guns.

Because voting is legal. Shooting people, generally, is not.

And the problem isn't necessarily the asking for IDs to vote, it's that the measures: 1) were only put up this year in battleground states with Republican governors/legislatures, 2) were specifically crafted to generate Republican outcomes, not voting integrity.

Perhaps the motives of these measures would be so questionable if the Republicans didn't have guys like Lee Atwater back in 1981 talking about the Southern Strategy and essentially saying that using the N-word might make the GOP unpopular, or Paul Weyrich (a co-founder of the Heritage Foundation) saying this in 1980:

I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact [Republican] leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.

I mean, I'm just sayin'.

Last edited by tifosi77 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

jprolley wrote:freedom-loving republicans aren't against restricting as many voting rights as they can, but when it comes to guns.......let every nutcase in the world have one. dead kids are just collateral damage.

Right. People opposing your gun views don't care about kids. S.O.S. Barry called Senators who voted against the bill as liars. This has been the liberal dogma since the great uniter took office.

so you agree that it's a bit hypocritical to claim to be all about freedom when they've spent how much time and energy on voting laws?

doublem wrote:willfully ignorant and self-important but refusing to look at our own failures of a nation.

True to an extent. As is willfully ignorant, holier-than-thou and refusing to look at our successes as a nation. Basic difference as shown on this board is that some consider this a great country with its share of warts; but the good greatly outweighing the bad. Others view it as a terrible country with the little good far outweighed by the bad.